Do Mobile Technologies Enable Work-Life Balance?

Dual Perspectives on BlackBerry Usage for Supplemental Work

Catherine A. Middleton

Ryerson University

Toronto, Canada

catherine.middleton@ryerson.ca

revised October 2007

Accepted for publication in Mobility and Technology in the Workplace

Edited by Donald Hislop

To be published by Routledge in 2008

1

Do Mobile Technologies Enable Work-Life Balance?

Dual Perspectives on BlackBerry Usage for Supplemental Work

Introduction

This chapter explores the usage of mobile communication devices to support supplemental

work. The ‘anytime, anywhere’ functionality of the devices provides enormous convenience for

users, and is thought to enhance their work productivity, while facilitating work-life balance. But

their always-on nature can lead to conflict when family members or others outside the users’

work environment feel that work is spilling over into the users’ non-work life.

Using texts from newspapers and magazines, the chapter investigates usage of a popular

mobile device, the BlackBerry®, from the perspectives of users’ families and friends, and of the

users themselves. The contradictory interpretations are striking. Indeed, the very acts that define

balance for BlackBerry users are clear signals of imbalance to those around them, resulting in

strong opposition to the devices among non-users. Described as BlackBerry orphans (Rosman,

2006) and widows (Sokol, 2006; von Hahn, 2004), non-users express ‘chagrin,’ ‘aggravation’

‘disapproval,’ and ‘ire’ about the use of the device in their homes (and elsewhere).

The chapter shows how the behaviours that users adopt to increase their work-life balance

result in the materialization of work, and taunt those in the non-work environment with ‘absent

presence.’ As the usage of ‘mobile work extending technologies’ like BlackBerries is expected to

rise in the future, the chapter outlines questions that should be addressed to help reduce the

potential for work-life conflict.

Work, Mobile Technologies and Work-Life Balance

There is a vast literature on telecommuting and telework, which provides the foundation for

2

more recent studies on mobile work. ‘Telecommuting’ refers to a specific arrangement to work

at home, reducing or eliminating the need to travel (commute) to work (Nilles, 1976).

‘Telework’ is used to describe “remote work [that] involves the use of information and

communication technologies” (Sullivan, 2003, p. 159). Many researchers consider the terms

telework and telecommuting synonymously (Ellison, 1999). What is important in this context is

that an explicit arrangement (voluntary or involuntary) is made between an employee and an

employer that relocates some or all of his or her tasks to the home, from an office location

(Felstead, Jewson, Phizacklea, & Walters, 2002; Fleetwood, 2007). These arrangements

represent a substitution in the work environment, where employees give up some time in their

offices and replace it with time spent working at home (Kraut, 1989). But the mobile work

behaviours described here are not generally part of a formal, intentional relocation of work from

one environment to another. Employees are not giving up their office space, instead they are

extending their work environments to include spaces beyond the office. This is an important

distinction (Kossek, Lautsch, & Eaton, 2006), yet the supplemental nature of such work practices

is not always reflected in studies on location of work (e.g. Felstead, Jewson, & Walters, 2005;

Hill, Ferris, & Martinson, 2003).

Bailyn (1988) describes this extension of work into home as ‘overflow,’ and notes that

people have been bringing work home from the office for many, many years. New technologies

allow knowledge workers to access, edit and create files, communicate with colleagues or

clients, search for information and conduct other tasks from many locations outside their offices.

Brown and O’Hara (2003, p. 1575) observe that mobile work ‘makes place,’ rather than ‘taking

place,’ suggesting that any location can be made into a work place by virtue of the fact that

someone chooses to work there. The portability of work, and of technologies, allows employees

3

to carry out ‘supplemental work at home’ (Venkatesh & Vitalari, 1992) but also extends the

potential workplace to anywhere within the reach of mobile technology. In the past decade,

supplemental work at home has given way to supplemental work anywhere.

The practise of working anywhere could easily be described as mobile work. Hislop and

Axtell (2007) point out that mobility is not considered in the existing telework literature, but

argue that mobile telework is becoming “an increasingly important form of work” (p. 35).

Mobile teleworkers move between home, office and “locations beyond home and office” (p. 46),

which include client premises and places visited for business travel. However, Hislop and Axtell

do not appear to identify these spaces as locations for supplemental work. Other studies of

mobile work (e. g. Brodt & Verburg, 2007; Brown & O’Hara, 2003) also exclude explicit

discussion of mobile work conducted outside usual working hours.

Thus, while there are existing literatures on supplemental work at home, and on mobile work,

it appears that there has been limited academic attention paid to date to the phenomenon of

mobile technologies being adopted in ways that allow supplemental work to move beyond the

boundaries of home. One exception is Duxbury, Thomas, Towers and Higgins’s (2005) research

on ‘work extension.’ Their definition of work extension recognizes that much work is now done

outside office hours (anytime) and at multiple locations outside the office (anywhere). Thus,

extended work is supplemental work, but the definition no longer limits the location of

supplemental work to the home. Personal digital assistants (PDAs), laptop computers, mobile

email devices (e.g. BlackBerries) and home PCs are all considered work extending technologies,

and the technologies are becoming more prevalent among managerial and professional workers

(Towers, Duxbury, Higgins, & Thomas, 2006).

As more people adopt extended work patterns, work is imposed on spaces and at times that

4

were previously ‘work free,’ thus increasing the potential for role conflict. Conflict between

work and non-work environments is not new (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Lewis, Gambles, &

Rapoport, 2007) and it is addressed by an extensive literature (see Edwards & Rothbard, 2000,

for a review of key concepts). However, much previous work on ‘work-life’ or ‘work-family’

balance in a telework environment (e.g. Golden, Veiga, & Simsek, 2006; Hill et al., 2003;

Madsen, 2003; Shumate & Fulk, 2004) does not reflect the pervasiveness or ubiquity of mobile

technologies, nor does it fully reflect the supplemental nature of work that is extending beyond

office hours and office boundaries. When supplemental and mobile work convergence to create

an anytime, anywhere, always-on work environment, the potential for conflict and imbalance is

exacerbated (Menzies, 2005).

Balance means different things to different people, and the distinction between ‘work’ and

‘life’ is problematic. The description of ‘family’ as being the core of life outside work is too

narrow (Ransome, 2007), while focusing on family alone as the key component to life outside

work excludes leisure and other non-family, non-work responsibilities (e.g. contribution to local

communities) (Guest, 2002). For expediency however, in this chapter participants in the non-

work sphere of individuals’ lives are referred to as ‘friends’ and ‘family,’ and the non-work

sphere is simply referred to as ‘life.’

Boundaries delineate spaces in people’s lives (e.g. work, home, ‘third places’) (Nippert-Eng,

1996), and individuals assume various roles (e.g. parent, partner, employee) within these

bounded spaces (Ashforth, Kreiner, & Fugate, 2000). Few people are able to completely segment

the spaces in their lives, thus there is potential for ‘role conflict’ as the demands of one role

compete with the demands of another (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964). Conflict

between work and family is a particular concern (Duxbury, Higgins, & Coghill, 2003; Duxbury,

5

Higgins, & Lee, 1994; Jacobs & Green, 1998).

Clark’s (2000) ‘work/family border theory’ builds on the assumption that work and family

occupy separate, yet related spheres. Each sphere has its own rules and culture, and there is a

border between the two. The theory illustrates the integrated, interdependent nature of work and

family life, and moves beyond simple observations of role conflict to frame the search for work-

life balance as a dynamic, ongoing set of negotiations that occur whenever individuals cross the

border between their work and life domains. Clark outlines various propositions that explain how

borders can facilitate or inhibit work-life balance. Assessment of work-life balance is influenced

by a person’s role in a domain, and by the strength of the border between domains. She suggests

that individuals who are central participants in a domain (i.e. strongly identify with the domain

and influence its environment) have more control over the border than peripheral participants. As

such, the expectations of the life domain may be set by a worker’s family, and not be in line with

the expectations of the work domain-centric border-crosser (and vice versa). However, it is also

proposed that ‘other domain awareness’ influences work-family balance, so that when domain

members are aware of the demands of the other domain, they are more supportive of the border-

crosser.

Clark’s theory does not consider the impact of work extending technologies on work-life

balance, but it is instructive to think of these technologies crossing borders with their users.

Work extending technologies are thought to enable improved productivity (Smith, 2005) and

help workers to achieve greater balance between work and non-work environments (Cousins &

Robey, 2005; Schlosser, 2002), but others suggest that this technology-enabled extension of

work is invasive and counterproductive (Hallowell, 2005; Jackson, 2007). What is of interest in

this chapter is the adoption of work extending technologies, like the BlackBerry, that are

6

portable, mobile and work almost everywhere, regardless of users’ work-life borders.

As early as 2000, the term ‘Crackberry’ was being used on Wall Street to describe the

addictive nature of these devices (Haines, 2000). While the question of whether BlackBerry

users are clinically addicted to their devices remains open (see Porter & Kakabadse, 2006, for a

discussion of technology addiction in the workplace), there is no doubt that BlackBerries are

deeply embedded in the daily lives of many of their users, and can trigger conflicts about work

boundaries (Middleton, 2007; Middleton & Cukier, 2006). This chapter explores the relationship

between BlackBerry adoption and perceptions of work-life balance. Unlike Middleton and

Cukier’s previous work, this study encompasses the dual perspectives of BlackBerry users and

their families and friends, recognizing the importance of assessing balance and work-life conflict

from both sides (Hill, Hawkins, & Miller, 1996). It builds on earlier work by Schlosser (2002),

Mazmanian, Orlikowski and Yates (2005), Towers et al. (2006), and Golden and Gessler (2007)

to further explore work-life balance challenges faced by knowledge workers when using mobile

devices that offer users ubiquitous connectivity to the office and support supplemental work at

anytime, from any location.

In North America, the BlackBerry has become the device of choice for mobile email. First

attracting public notice for providing communication in New York City on September 11, 2001

after much of the telecommunications infrastructure failed (see for example “Downtown

BlackBerry E-Mail Repository”), the BlackBerry experienced slow but steady growth in

subscriptions for its first few years. By early 2004, there were more than 1 million BlackBerry

subscribers, and by mid-2005, 3 million people had subscribed (Research in Motion, 2004;

Research in Motion, 2005) to this “iconic pocket-sized e-mail device” (Economist Staff, 2005).

A patent dispute in 2006 that threatened to shut down BlackBerry service caused much

7

consternation among users as they faced the potential loss of their devices (Parks, 2006; Smith,

2006). Although rare, disruptions in service are headline news (e.g. Vascellaro, Yuan, Sharma, &

Rhoads, 2007). As of late 2007, there were more than 10.5 million subscribers (Research in

Motion, 2007), with growth estimated at 1 million subscribers every three months (Sorensen,

2007).

The BlackBerry’s reputation, and continued success, rests upon its highly reliable, secure and

user-friendly email service – “It’s small and it works” (Estates Gazette Staff, 2005). The device

is a PDA and a mobile phone, and provides ‘push’ email functionality, delivering messages as

they are received without the need for users to take action to connect to the internet. In many

countries, before even stepping off an airplane, travelers can send and receive email effortlessly

by just turning on their BlackBerries. This simple device has become indispensable for legions of

business users around the world. It allows people to check their email anywhere, and to respond

to messages in an unobtrusive manner. It also makes it very easy for individuals to carry their

work with them, and to engage in work activities in locations and at times that were previously

‘off limits.’

The following section presents data showing how BlackBerries are used to support

supplemental work, explaining how the devices help users balance their work-life

responsibilities. It also shows how this assessment of work-life balance is not shared by

BlackBerry users’ friends and family, who perceive the devices to be disruptive, distracting and

over-used.

BlackBerry Usage Data

The data that follow are drawn from popular press accounts of BlackBerry usage in the past

two years (2005-2007), as catalogued in the Factiva database. After a search on the term

8

‘BlackBerry’ yielded almost 60,000 ‘hits,’ the more restrictive term ‘Crackberry’ was used.

While this approach excluded relevant articles about BlackBerry usage that did not mention the

word Crackberry, it does provide a good sample of articles that address the tensions created as

mobile technologies enable work to spill over into other aspects of people’s lives.

From a starting point of more than 1000 articles, a research team removed duplicates and

irrelevant articles, resulting in a final compilation of just over 200 articles that discussed various

aspects of BlackBerry (and other mobile device) usage in individuals’ daily lives. The team then

indexed the articles1 in a bibliographic software program and exported the texts into a qualitative

data analysis program for thematic analysis using a semi-structured coding protocol.

It might be argued that BlackBerry usage behaviours deemed newsworthy are extreme ones,

and not representative of ‘ordinary’ BlackBerry users going about their daily lives. But the vivid

examples presented here do show the conflicts inherent in adopting mobile technologies to

extend supplemental work practices, and provide a focal point for discussing the implications of

continued uptake of work extending technologies. While the results may not be generalizable,

the anecdotes provided here are consistent with descriptions of BlackBerry usage in a small scale

study of Canadian BlackBerry users conducted in 2005 (Middleton & Cukier, 2006; Middleton,

Scheepers, & Cukier, 2005), and provide insights into users’ and non-users’ experiences of

‘mobile work extending technologies.’

In the section below, data are presented to show how BlackBerries are used for supplemental

work away from the office. Descriptions of how the devices enable work-life balance for the

users are provided, followed by evidence from non-users that offer a contrary perspective on the

device’s role in balancing the work and non-work spheres.

9

Location of Use

BlackBerry users are described as “the ones hunched over like squirrels with a walnut,

thumbs flying manically, even at weddings, funerals and the movies.” A “devoted” user reported

using his BlackBerry during his wife’s stepfather’s funeral, a Congressman was observed

spending “a great deal of time on his BlackBerry during [Ash Wednesday] service and prayer,

both reading emails and sending emails.”

Some users take their BlackBerries into the shower (“keep[ing] it within view but dry”), and

there are reports of people who “accidentally dropped the device in the toilet.” One user

described how he’d “fallen asleep with it in [his] hands, read it as [he] ate, watched TV, waited

in line, and while playing soccer with [his] son.” Others spend time at their children’s concerts,

baseball games, or swim practices with BlackBerries in hand, pleased that they can “still be at

work!”

BlackBerries are frequently found at the meal table. It seems that no special occasion is

exempt, as users confess to “us(ing) it at Passover dinner,” and “interrupting the turkey dinner,

mince pies and festivities on Christmas day to check their BlackBerry for email messages and

keep tabs on the company’s IT operations.” One woman “caught her husband e-mailing under

the table during her Valentine’s Day dinner,” while another found her companion checking email

throughout their first date. These practices are captured nicely by cartoonist Philip Street in his

Fisher strip2.

10

©Philip Street. Used with permission.

In describing the factors that led up to his divorce, a man says “the thing that really brought it

home to me was we were in an intimate moment in bed, and I lifted up my head and I caught my

wife checking her e-mail on the BlackBerry.” Not an isolated incident, a doctor reported being

asked by a patient “whether [he] thought it was abnormal that her husband brings the BlackBerry

to bed and lays it next to them while they make love.”

A woman describes a dream “about squirrels eating acorns. …And then I woke up, and it was

my husband, the tap, tap, tap, tap on the BlackBerry.” A man reports that BlackBerry is “the last

thing I check before going to sleep and the first thing I touch in the morning.” Some people even

use it in the middle of the night, including one man who regularly checked email while getting

up in the night with his newborn daughter.

There are many reports of drivers using BlackBerries (“It is actually scary to see people

driving in their cars receiving and sending e-mails”), and the devices also accompany their users

on vacation. BlackBerries can be found on the golf course, poolside or at the beach. A man took

his BlackBerry to Maui for his 10th anniversary celebration, and another “went to Disneyland

last year accompanied by his wife, their two children and his BlackBerry. According to his wife,

the BlackBerry drained much of the magic from the Magic Kingdom.”

11

User Perceptions of Work-Life Balance

BlackBerries provide their users with a ‘24/7’ connection to their offices, and there is a

strong sentiment that the devices help provide balance in users’ lives. “I like to be connected,”

says a small business owner. “I don’t know what I would do without it. And I’m much more

likely to take vacation because of it. I have more work/life balance because I carry my Treo [a

Palm Pilot product with similar functionality to the BlackBerry]; I feel less need to be in the

office.” A lawyer describes how his BlackBerry allows him to “go places and do things and still

stay on top of my work… keep[ing] tabs on the office, while hanging out with his kids.”

BlackBerries allow their users to be efficient, while spending time with friends and family –

“If we’re standing in line for 40 minutes waiting for a ride [at Disneyland], I don’t see why I

can’t answer my e-mail,” says one user. When his son made the Little League all-star team, a

man enthused that “the BlackBerry allowed me to go to the game and still deal with some real-

time issues we had in the office.” A 2006 survey by recruitment firm Korn/Ferry found that

“More than one-third of 2,300 executives surveyed in 75 countries believed they spent too much

time connected to communications devices. But more than three-quarters, or 77 percent of

respondents, said they believe mobile communication devices primarily enhance their work/life

balance rather than impede it.”

An Alternative Perspective on Work-Life Balance

Many people, especially friends and family of BlackBerry users, do not share the belief that

BlackBerries create balance. This quote expresses a common sentiment – “She hates that he’s a

BlackBerry fiend, especially when he argues that using it leaves more time for family.” The

important people in users’ lives are not shy in expressing their opinions about BlackBerry use in

their environments. While a four-year old expressed her displeasure at her mother’s BlackBerry

12

usage by simply hiding the device, her seven year old brother was more sophisticated in trying to

flush it down a toilet. Immersing BlackBerries in water seems to have broad appeal. “The winner

of the British version of The Apprentice, a reality TV show, has admitted that his wife has

threatened to flush his BlackBerry down the toilet,” a threat repeated by other users’ spouses.

One wife “wanted to pick it up and throw it into the swimming pool” (while on vacation) while

another “tried to throw it off the boat when [they] were on [their] honeymoon.” The Alex comic

strip3 regularly captures the frustrations of BlackBerry users’ families, as seen below.

Alex cartoon by Peattie and Taylor, Alex appears in the Daily Telegraph.

Throwing the BlackBerry out a window was also suggested by an irate wife who felt ignored

by her husband. A husband remarked that he would not use his BlackBerry at Christmas, for fear

of watching his “BlackBerry crackling away on the fire along with the Yule log.”

In some households, family members have adopted ‘rules of engagement’ for BlackBerry

use. This may mean a ban on using the BlackBerry on weekends, or a ban on use in restaurants

and the bedroom. Children help to discourage their parents’ BlackBerry usage, “begging” them

to stop using it at the table. One woman was surprised when her daughter “literally applauded

her decision to leave her BlackBerry behind when vacationing.” Nevertheless, some people

continue to use their BlackBerries, even when it is very clear that such usage is not acceptable to

others. Fearing discovery, users hide their devices from spouses or family members but insist

their behaviours are justified. One user explains that “his BlackBerry actually alleviates marital

13

tension by allowing him to secretly check his email and get work done during vacations with his

wife.” Another individual reports that checking his BlackBerry on vacation (while hiding in the

bathroom to do so) resulted in “A relaxed me, an unsuspecting girlfriend, a holiday success.”

Analysis

The data presented here show the pervasive usage of BlackBerries, and demonstrate the

conflicting assessment of the value of such devices. BlackBerries do enable people to be

connected to their work from anywhere, at anytime. This connectivity provides users with great

comfort because it allows them to remain in contact with their jobs while attending to other

aspects of their lives. While there is no doubt that many users feel pressured to remain connected

to work at all hours, with some organizational cultures reinforcing and validating this expectation

(Middleton, 2007), users are adamant that their BlackBerries allow them freedom, and contribute

to work-life balance by allowing them to spend more time with friends and family. But their

friends and family often resent the presence of the BlackBerry, seeing it as a means for users to

extend their work into spaces where work is not welcome. Rather than interpreting this as work-

life balance, friends and family view anytime, anywhere BlackBerry usage as always-on work.

Rather than experiencing less conflict as a result of being able to better manage their work and

life commitments, BlackBerry users may face increased conflict, as their friends and family

actively resist the device. BlackBerries have been successful because they can turn any place into

a work place, which is exactly the reason why they are reviled by those who want to contain

work within well-defined agreed upon boundaries.

Clark’s (2000) work/family border theory (described earlier) offers some insights to help

understand the data presented above. Of interest in this chapter is the border crossing from the

work domain into the family (non-work) domain, where work-family spillover is possible. The

14

data show that when BlackBerry users cross from the work to the life (non-work) sphere they

frequently bring their BlackBerries ‘over the border.’ They are met by the border-keeper, usually

a spouse or significant other, as well as other domain members (e.g. children). It is expected that

upon crossing the border (which may be physical, temporal or psychological), “domain-relevant

behavior” (Clark, 2000, p. 756) takes place.

Applying the concept of border crossing to the data presented above generates insights

related to two themes. The first theme is described as the materialization of work, in which a

specific artifact, the BlackBerry, permeates the work-life border to bring work into what is

understood to be a non-work environment. The second theme relates to the idea of ‘absent

presence’ (Gergen, 2002), and can be seen here as a form of taunting. Given its visibility and

popularity, the BlackBerry has garnered more attention than other devices, and it is likely a

harbinger for more widespread uptake of mobile work extending technologies. It is suggested

that the observations made here are not device dependent, but apply wherever mobile

technologies are adopted to facilitate anytime, anywhere supplementary work.

Materialization of Work

Border theory suggests that there are acceptable behaviours for each sphere, and that when a

person crosses the border, he or she transitions to the norms of the sphere just entered. Ashforth,

Kreiner and Fugate (2000) note that these crossings involve exiting one role and taking up

another. The adoption of mobile technologies reduces the likelihood that such role exit will

actually occur when moving across the work-life border, as the demands of the work role can

continue to be met by using mobile technologies in the life sphere. As such, a BlackBerry can be

understood as a very visible manifestation of work and of permeable work-life borders. When

the device is taken across the work-life border, it provides a clear indication that the user remains

15

linked to the work domain even though he or she is physically present in the non-work domain.

Even if the user leaves the device turned off, its mere presence signals that work is possible.

Users argue that this provides them with the flexibility to attend to their non-work lives without

neglecting work duties, but from the perspective of the domain members this materialization of

work shows that users have not left the work domain.

Prior to the widespread adoption of mobile devices, it was easier to contain work within

physical and temporal boundaries. While spillover of work into the non-work domain has always

been a potential source of conflict, what has changed with the uptake of mobile work extending

technologies is that temporal and physical boundaries are more easily breached. It is easy to take

a BlackBerry to a social event (dinner party, baseball game) or to check email while lying in bed

or while sitting by the pool on vacation. Users view such behaviours as freeing themselves from

the physical constraints of the office, but for their friends and family, work is now visibly

occupying times and spaces in the non-work domain that were previously off-limits. The device

that enables this extension of work acts as a ‘lightning rod,’ attracting attention to the presence of

work. Despite users’ best efforts to be discrete when using BlackBerries in ‘inappropriate’

settings, its presence draws attention to work. Because it is so pervasive, and provides a

persistent visual reminder that work has infiltrated the non-work domain, the BlackBerry has

become an obvious target for criticism and a flashpoint for work-family conflict. The device may

well act as a proxy for broader dissent about differential expectations regarding work-life

balance, increasing the intensity of resistance to the device and explaining why its very

appearance can provoke such ire and emotion from users’ friends and families.

Absent Presence: How Mobile Devices Taunt Non-Users

Not only does the BlackBerry bring a visible manifestation of work into the home and other

16

non-work environments, it can also psychologically remove users from the non-work

environment and return them to a work mindset. As has been mentioned, BlackBerry users feel

that the device allows them to balance work and life domains, because they can attend to work

needs while outside the workplace. But although physically present in the non-work domain,

whenever users engage with their BlackBerries, they are removing themselves from their present

environment and focusing their attention elsewhere. Described by Gergen (2002) as ‘absent

presence’ and by Fortunati (2002) as ‘present absence’ this behaviour taunts those around the

user by providing the appearance of attention to, or participation in the non-work domain, while

actually remaining grounded in the work domain.

Users pride themselves on the fact that their BlackBerries allow them to attend events and

participate in activities that they would have missed in the days before mobile technologies, yet

arguably, they are still missing such events by engaging with their devices, rather than with their

physical environment. In the past, people with heavy work commitments would have met these

commitments by staying at the office to complete the work, or by confining their work to a

specific location within their non-work domain (e.g. a home office), and not participating in the

non-work domain. BlackBerries allow the work to be done anywhere, satisfying users that they

are achieving balance, but frustrating their friends and family by making it more obvious that

work is spilling over into non-work times and spaces. Given the particular reactions that

BlackBerry use in the non-work domain provokes, it is understandable that non-users might

interpret this behaviour as taunting. In the name of participating in activities with families and

friends, BlackBerry users join the non-work environment, and promote the appearance of being

engaged with it, but can at any time ‘step out’ of the environment to return to work. From the

perspective of BlackBerry users, the guilt of missing an activity is removed or at least mitigated,

17

but from the perspective of family and friends, it appears that the BlackBerry exacerbates the

awareness of work-life imbalance.

Discussion and Conclusions

The anecdotes of BlackBerry usage presented here show how actions that knowledge

workers take to balance their work activities with their personal lives can result in conflict. By

materializing work, mobile work extending technologies like BlackBerries can become the

centre of attention when used outside the office, and provide a focal point for discontent among

friends and family members. Likewise, efforts at being present in the non-work environment are

not always met with approval. Although the workers make a special effort to engage with their

friends and family by participating in events and activities, the fact that they bring their

BlackBerries with them triggers resentment. Rather than appreciating the worker’s presence in

the non-work environment, attention is focused on the absences created when the worker

engages with his or her job through a mobile device.

It is likely that the workers do not fully understand their friends and family members’ disdain

for their devices (and equally likely that friends and family do not understand the demanding

nature of the work environment that does expect workers to be connected and available outside

business hours). Towers et al. (2006) found that heavy users of work extending technologies

believed that their families understood their need to work during family time, and although they

recognized that heavy usage could be problematic, individuals felt that they were doing a good

job of controlling the extent to which their technology use was spilling over into their personal

lives. This justification of individual work practices indicates that workers believe their approach

of combining work and non-work activities is both effective and appropriate.

This approach to work-life balance is comparable to the ‘integrating the self’ repertoire

18

identified by Golden and Gessler (2007), in which PDA users explicitly used their devices to

transcend, rather than contain, work-life boundaries. Felstead and Jewson (2000) identify

segregated and integrated approaches to creating work-life boundaries. The integrated approach,

which was adopted by the BlackBerry users described here, is based on weak temporal and

spatial separation of work and non-work domains. In their study comparing different types of

mobile work, Hislop and Axtell (2007) showed that an integrated approach provided less work-

life balance than a segregated approach.

This study provides no point of comparison to determine whether a more segregated

approach to BlackBerry adoption would have resulted in less work-life conflict, but it does show

that the integrated approach that was adopted did not sit well with friends and family. This is an

interesting finding, because one of the key affordances of mobile work extending technologies

like BlackBerries is that they allow users to integrate their home and work lives, and to maintain

open boundaries between the two. This study suggests that while this works for the BlackBerry

users, it may not work for those around them. It is possible that the covert uses are a response to

the shortcomings of an integrated approach, allowing individuals to avoid disapproval and

conflict by reverting to absence and secrecy to conduct their work in non-work domains.

BlackBerries and other mobile work extending technologies are still relatively new, and it is

likely that the ways in which they are used will evolve over time. There is some evidence of

users adopting more structured approaches to keep their work and personal lives in balance

(Jackson, 2007), but the usage patterns portrayed here are the dominant ones at present. As noted

earlier, for many users the appeal of the BlackBerry or other mobile devices is that they do

enable anytime, anywhere work, functionality which has been constructed by users as a means of

controlling their busy, demanding lives and enhancing work-life balance. As such, it is expected

19

that the usage patterns documented here and the conflict such usage engenders will continue.

This raises a number of questions to be considered by those adopting mobile technologies to

support supplemental work, and by researchers interested in the intersection of mobility and

supplemental work.

• What are the longer-term implications of work-life conflict that is exacerbated by the

adoption of mobile devices? Are there ways of mitigating the conflict? What actions

could be taken to achieve better fit between the users’ real needs to remain connected to

work while away from the office, and the demands of their non-work environments? Can

users learn to temper their addict-like attention to their devices, while those around them

accept that some usage is necessary? Are there alternatives to covert use that meet the

needs of users and their friends and families?

• What are the broader forces driving users’ compulsive attachment to mobile work

extending technologies? Are the devices truly addictive, or do users exhibit signs of being

addicted to their work? What can be learned from an extensive reading of the literature

on workaholism (see for example Burke, 2006; Kofodimos, 1993; Porter, 2006)? e.g. Do

choices that users make with respect to favouring their work domains over non-work

ones suggest deeper issues regarding their relationships with each domain?

• What are the broader cultural and societal forces driving such behaviours? Why do

organizations support uses that can have negative impacts on their employees’ personal

lives (and potentially reduce overall productivity and effectiveness)? Why do employees

feel such compulsion to remain connected to their offices and to work all the time? To

what extent is supplemental work really necessary?

This chapter contributes to our understanding of technology enabled mobile work by

20

providing insights into the usage of mobile technologies to support supplemental work. By

definition, supplemental work occurs outside the office, and with the advent of ubiquitous, user

friendly communication devices, it can be, and is, done from anywhere, at anytime. The chapter

shows that claims that mobile technologies facilitate work-life balance are one-sided, and applies

border theory to explain how current uses can increase work-life conflict by materializing work

and taunting family and friends with absent presence. Given that the adoption of mobile work

extending technologies is expected to increase, it is important that all those affected by their

usage consider how to make such usage more favourable to all.

There are more questions than answers at present. The convergence of supplemental work

and mobile technologies raises complex issues that require much more nuanced analysis and a

greater grounding in the literature than can be provided within a single book chapter. Issues of

gender and power were not addressed here but must be considered. It is also important to

determine the extent to which individuals and organizations are willing to move toward an

environment of always-on, anytime, anywhere work. What do people really want, and how can

they ensure that their needs are not subsumed by corporate agendas and unfettered, uncritical

adoption of technologies? In 1988, Bailyn wrote that “Information technology makes it possible

to free work from the constraints of location and time” (p. 149). Today the challenge is to free

location and time from the constraints of work.

1 Specific references are not provided for the data presented here. The author can provide full

references for quotations upon request. Identifying information on individual BlackBerry users

has been removed from the data.

2 See http://www.philipstreet.com/fisher/archives.html for archives of the Fisher strip.

BlackBerries feature in the comic strip April 7, 8, and 9, 2005, and again March 20 through

March 23, 2007.

3 A search for ‘BlackBerry’ in the Alex archive

21

http://www.alexcartoon.com/index.cfm?section=archive_search returns many insightful comics

about BlackBerry usage.

22

Bibliography

Ashforth, B.E., Kreiner, G.E. and Fugate, M. (2000). ‘All in a Day’s Work’, Academy of

Management Review, 25: 472-91.

Bailyn, L. (1988). ‘Freeing Work from the Constraints of Location and Time’, New Technology,

Work and Employment, 3: 143-52.

Brodt, T.L. and Verburg, R.M. (2007). ‘Managing Mobile Work – Insights from European

Practice’, New Technology, Work and Employment, 22: 52-65.

Brown, B. and O’Hara, K. (2003). ‘Place as a Practical Concern of Mobile Workers’,

Environment and Planning A, 35: 1565-87.

Burke, R.J. (2006). Research Companion to Working Time and Work Addiction. Cheltenham,

UK: Edward Elgar.

Clark, S.C. (2000). ‘Work/Family Border Theory: A New Theory of Work/Family Balance’,

Human Relations, 53: 747-70.

Cousins, K.C. and Robey, D. (2005). ‘Human Agency in a Wireless World: Patterns of

Technology Use in Nomadic Computing Environments’, Information and Organization, 15:

151-80.

Downtown BlackBerry E-Mail Repository. Retrieved 28 July, 2007, from

http://www.911digitalarchive.org/email/downtown_blackberry.html

Duxbury, L., Higgins, C. and Coghill, D. (2003). Voices of Canadians: Seeking Work-Life

Balance. Hull. QC: Human Resources Development Canada.

Duxbury, L., Higgins, C. and Lee, C. (1994). ‘Work-Family Conflict: A Comparison by Gender,

Family Type, and Perceived Control.’ Journal of Family Issues, 15: 449-66.

Duxbury, L., Thomas, J.A., Towers, I. and Higgins, C. (2005). From 9 to 5 to 24 and 7: How

Technology Has Redefined the Workday. Report Prepared for Industry Canada. Ottawa.

Economist Staff. (2005). ‘The CrackBerry Backlash’, The Economist, 375: 78.

Edwards, J.R. and Rothbard, N.P. (2000). ‘Mechanisms Linking Work and Family: Clarifying

the Relationship between Work and Family Constructs’, Academy of Management Review,

25: 178-99.

Ellison, N.B. (1999). ‘Social Impacts: New Perspectives on Telework’, Social Science Computer

Review, 17: 338-56.

Estates Gazette Staff. (2005, 15 October). Season of Fruitful Technology. Estates Gazette, p. 89.

Felstead, A. and Jewson, N. (2000). In Work, at Home: Towards an Understanding of

Homeworking. London: Routledge.

Felstead, A., Jewson, N., Phizacklea, A. and Walters, S. (2002). ‘The Option to Work at Home:

Another Privilege for the Favoured Few?’ New Technology, Work and Employment, 17:

204-23.

Felstead, A., Jewson, N. and Walters, S. (2005). ‘The Shifting Locations of Work: New

Statistical Evidence on the Spaces and Places of Employment’, Work, Employment &

23

Society, 19: 415-31.

Fleetwood, S. (2007). ‘Why Work-Life Balance Now?’ International Journal of Human Resource

Management, 18: 387-400.

Fortunati, L. (2002). ‘The Mobile Phone: Towards New Categories and Social Relations’,

Information, Communication & Society, 5: 513-28.

Gergen, K.J. (2002). ‘The Challenge of Absent Presence’, In J.E. Katz and M.A. Aakhus (eds.),

Perpetual Contact: Mobile Communication, Private Talk, Public Performance (pp. 227-41).

Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Golden, A.G. and Geisler, C. (2007). ‘Work-Life Boundary Management and the Personal

Digital Assistant’, Human Relations, 60: 519-51.

Golden, T.D., Veiga, J.F. and Simsek, Z. (2006). ‘Telecommuting’s Differential Impact on

Work-Family Conflict: Is There No Place Like Home?’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 91:

1340-50.

Greenhaus, J.H. and Beutell, N.J. (1985). ‘Sources of Conflict between Work and Family Roles’,

Academy of Management Review, 10: 76.

Guest, D.E. (2002). ‘Perspectives on the Study of Work-Life Balance’, Social Science

Information, 41: 255-79.

Haines, M. (2000, 29 September). Research in Motion - CFO - Interview: Transcript.

CNBC/Dow Jones Business Video.

Hallowell, E. (2005). ‘Overloaded Circuits: Why Smart People Underperform’, Harvard

Business Review, 83: 54-62.

Hill, E.J., Ferris, M. and Martinson, V. (2003). ‘Does It Matter Where You Work? A

Comparison of How Three Work Venues (Traditional Office, Virtual Office, and Home

Office) Influence Aspects of Work and Personal/Family Life’, Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 63: 220-41.

Hill, E.J., Hawkins, A.J. and Miller, B.C. (1996). ‘Work and Family in the Virtual Office:

Perceived Influences of Mobile Telework’, Family Relations, 45: 293-301.

Hislop, D. and Axtell, C. (2007). ‘The Neglect of Spatial Mobility in Contemporary Studies of

Work: The Case of Telework’, New Technology Work and Employment, 22: 34-51.

Jackson, M. (2007, 3 June). Keeping Work Where It Belongs. The Boston Globe, p. G19.

Jacobs, J.A. and Green, K. (1998). ‘Who Are the Overworked Americans?’ Review of Social

Economy, 56: 442 - 59.

Kahn, R., Wolfe, D., Quinn, R., Snoek, J. and Rosenthal, R. (1964). Organizational Stress:

Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity. New York: Wiley.

Kofodimos, J.R. (1993). Balancing Act: How Managers Can Integrate Successful Careers and

Fulfilling Personal Lives (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kossek, E.E., Lautsch, B.A. and Eaton, S.C. (2006). ‘Telecommuting, Control, and Boundary

Management: Correlates of Policy Use and Practice, Job Control, and Work-Family

Effectiveness’, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68: 347-67.

24

Kraut, R.E. (1989). ‘Telecommuting: The Trade-Offs of Home Work’, Journal of

Communication, 39: 19-47.

Lewis, S., Gambles, R. and Rapoport, R. (2007). ‘The Constraints of A “Work–Life Balance”

Approach: An International Perspective’, The International Journal of Human Resource

Management, 18: 360 - 73.

Madsen, S.R. (2003). ‘The Effects of Home-Based Teleworking on Work-Family Conflict’,

Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14: 35-58.

Mazmanian, M.A., Orlikowski, W.J. and Yates, J. (2005). ‘Crackberries: The Social Implications

of Ubiquitous Wireless E-Mail Devices’, In C. Sørensen, Y. Yoo, K. Lyytinen and J.I.

DeGross (eds.), Designing Ubiquitous Information Environments: Socio-Technical Issues

and Challenges (pp. 337-44). New York: Springer.

Menzies, H. (2005). No Time: Stress and the Crisis of Modern Life. Vancouver, BC: Douglas &

McIntyre.

Middleton, C.A. (2007). ‘Understanding the BlackBerry as an Instrument of Organizational

Culture’, Continuum: Journal of Media and Cultural Studies, 21: 165-78.

Middleton, C.A. and Cukier, W. (2006). ‘Is Mobile Email Functional or Dysfunctional? Two

Perspectives on Mobile Email Usage’, European Journal of Information Systems, 15: 252-

60.

Middleton, C.A., Scheepers, H. and Cukier, W. (2005). ‘Exploring the Contradictions of

Mobility: A Case Study of BlackBerry Users in Canada’, In J.Y.L. Thong and K.Y. Tam

(eds.), Proceedings of the Hong Kong Mobility Roundtable (pp. 299-309). Hong Kong:

HKUST.

Nilles, J.M. (1976). The Telecommunications-Transportation Tradeoff: Options for Tomorrow.

New York: Wiley.

Nippert-Eng, C.E. (1996). Home and Work: Negotiating Boundaries through Everyday Life.

Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Parks, B. (2006, 29 January). Addiction, Withdrawal and the BlackBerry. The Star-Ledger, p. 1.

Porter, G. (2006). ‘Profiles of Workaholism among High-Tech Managers’, Career Development

International, 11: 440-62.

Porter, G. and Kakabadse, N.K. (2006). ‘HRM Perspectives on Addiction to Technology and

Work’, Journal of Management Development, 25: 535 - 60.

Ransome, P. (2007). ‘Conceptualizing Boundaries between ‘Life’ and ‘Work’’, International

Journal of Human Resource Management, 18: 374-86.

Research in Motion. (2004). Annual Report. Retrieved 14 February, 2005, from

http://www.rim.com/investors/pdf/2004rim_ar.pdf

Research in Motion. (2005, 9 May). BlackBerry Subscribers Surge to over Three Million.

Retrieved 1 September, 2005, from http://www.blackberry.com/news/press/2005/pr-

09_05_2005-01.shtml

Research in Motion. (2007). Research in Motion Reports Second Quarter Results. Retrieved 28

25

October, 2007, from http://www.rim.net/news/press/2007/pr-04_10_2007-01.shtml

Rosman, K. (2006, 9 December). BlackBerry Orphans: The Kids Fight Back; Heavy Use of E-

Mail Gadgets Is Spawning a Generation of Resentful Children. The Globe and Mail, p. B15.

Schlosser, F.K. (2002). ‘So, How Do People Really Use Their Handheld Devices? An Interactive

Study of Wireless Technology Use’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23: 401-23.

Shumate, M. and Fulk, J. (2004). ‘Boundaries and Role Conflict When Work and Family Are

Colocated: A Communication Network and Symbolic Interaction Approach’, Human

Relations, 57: 55-74.

Smith, D. (2006, 5 February 2006). BlackBerry Addicts Fear Total Blackout. The Observer, p.

22.

Smith, I. (2005). ‘Social-Mobile Applications’, Computer, 38: 84-5.

Sokol, J. (2006, 5 July). The Tale of a Man and His CrackBerry, Er, BlackBerry. The Orange

County Register.

Sorensen, C. (2007, 7 July 2007). CEO Balsillie Shrugs Off ‘BlackBerry Killer’. Toronto Star, p.

B1.

Sullivan, C. (2003). ‘What’s in a Name? Definitions and Conceptualisations of Teleworking and

Homeworking’, New Technology, Work and Employment, 18: 158-65.

Towers, I., Duxbury, L., Higgins, C. and Thomas, J. (2006). ‘Time Thieves and Space Invaders:

Technology, Work and the Organization’, Journal of Organizational Change Management,

19: 593-618.

Vascellaro, J.E., Yuan, L., Sharma, A. and Rhoads, C. (2007, 19 April). Disconnected and

Discombobulated - ‘CrackBerry’ Outage Forces Users to Go Cold Turkey; Pause in ‘Infernal

Buzzing’. The Wall Street Journal, p. B1.

Venkatesh, A. and Vitalari, N.P. (1992). ‘An Emerging Distributed Work Arrangement: An

Investigation of Computer-Based Supplemental Work at Home’, Management Science, 38:

1687-706.

von Hahn, K. (2004, 1 May). I’m a Blackberry Widow. Globe and Mail, p. L3.